The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog

Simultaneously True

2008-07-20T11:15:00.001-07:00

I've touched on this before but with Maliki's recent comments I think a helpful analysis would be to emphasize that the following are simultaneously true.

1. It's bad that the US has a military contingent in Iraq. It's bad for are country. Nobody should want them to stay. Everyone should want them to leave. Getting them to leave is of overarching importance to all are life's.

2. If they are asked to leave by Iraq, and thus leave, it will be a huge failure on the part of George W. Bush. Because they'll be LEAVING and he will have FAILED at them staying.

Both 1. and 2. are simultaneously true.

"Over" + Troops = Oxymoran

2008-07-17T16:26:00.000-07:00

Michael Totten says the The Iraq War is "all but over". Michael Yon says it's "has ended".

I don't understand these people. I literally don't understand them. I read most of there posts but it was just like blah blah. Meanwhile we have TROOPS IN IRAQ. Actuel troops people. How can a war be "over" in a place if the U.S. has troops stationed in that place. Period. (Especially on Arab Land. This land is ARAB folks. Taht's a fact not going away).

This just make's us look stupid in the eyes of The World. I have co worker colleages who is from place's like Germany and Europe. This German guy Andreas was reading over my shoulder these morans and cracking up. Then Kai came over (he's from Korea) and was wondering whats up. We both tried to explain to him that there's guys on the Internet saying that The Iraq War is over but he could'nt believe us. Finally all three of us was cracking up so much about how someone could say that a war could be "over" in a place where US troops is. Me, the German guy and the Korean - we all agreed about how rediculous such a concept is (that you could consider a war "over" in a situation where US troops are still there).

Taht's how stupid these dhingers are though. The just don't get it. Totally oblivous.

Request III: Global Warming

2008-07-14T17:35:00.000-07:00

Pastorius requests'

...could you tell us what is the meeting ground between Global Warming and Climate Change? Are they the same thing, or just two sides of the same coin, or what?

If Global Warming goes away (some of dhingers says it is), then is Climate Change just as bad? Is it part of it?

I think there's a lot of missed conceptions which I'll be happy to clear up.

First off, you're almost right: Climate Change, like any other description of, aspect of, or event in the environment, is just a facet of Global Warming. Of course, we know for a fact that Global Warming is happening due to our complete and accurate models of the oceano-atmospheric system that include, in particular, full and detailed models of cloud formation, solar and extrasolar radiation, hurricane generation, and fluid turbulence, all piggybacked onto solving the full three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations for both air and water, as well as correct boundary conditions in the upper atmosphere, and initialized with the full necessary initial conditions over the entirety of the earth and earth's oceans, including temperature, pressure, velocity, density, salinity (for the oceans), etc., all with grid size on the order of no more than say a few dozen meters. This is how we know the earth is getting and will only continue to get ever warmer.

That said, sometimes there might be periods when, at the end of the day, you turn on the news and notice some places perhaps winding up getting (for example) really really cold. (After all, who knows?). When that sort of (Warming-contextualized) cooling happens it's clearly due to the Global Warming itself because how could it not be if Warming is occurring (which it is, cf. above). Only thing is, in such cases when the Warming causes cooling, we don't call it Warming we call it Climate Change. (To prevent confusion).

So that's the main answer to your question. You also ask something about "if Global Warming goes away", but this is completely impossible (see above). Global Warming is settled science and CANNOT go away by any mechanism, or be in the process of going away (regardless of what measurements might say), and to hypothesize as much or even question this is anti-science. Which of course just illustrates the need for the world (or at least, in any event, the United States by itself) to set up a centralized taxation/regulation system with essentially unlimited authority to limit/restrict (American) human economic activity/behavior/mobility/living conditions/prosperity in order to make Global Warming go away.

Finally, is Climate Change bad? As a facet of Global Warming, the answer is of course: yes. This is because Global Warming is automatically bad, because that means a climate that changes in a nonzero way, which is (of course) bad. After all, the Earth has, throughout recorded history, had a climate whose state had been what scientists refer to as "constant" - that is to say, it had not changed whatsoever. It has been absolutely the same throughout all time. As every schoolchild knows.

Global Warming, however, would make the climate change. Like what if the time/space-averaged temperature of the earth in the 21st century ends up being (say) 0.4 degrees higher than the time/space-averaged temperature of the earth was in the 20th century? As far as I know, no such thing has ever happened before. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that all conceivable climate observables on all space/timescales were absolute constants before humanity arrived.

But now our measurements are recording that some of those observables have actually changed a bit since, say, the 1800s (which is bad, because the climate in the 1800s was ideal in every way) and our models (the completeness of which, see above) project they will change a bit more in the near future as well (which is bad because the climate right now is ideal in every way, except for the fact that it warmed since the 1800s). These changes are bad because they are changes and change is bad. Unfortunately, conservatives for some reason don't see it that way. Typical.

The tragedy of this of course is that the only thing that stands in the way of us solving this huge, inexorable GLOBAL problem is that the conservative political voting faction in the United States won't yet let U.S. government employees in the Washington, DC/Baltimore/Virginia area create any sort of government bureaucracy which has the stated intent of solving it, along with lots of regulatory, budgeting, and taxation authority in the name of that intent. Which, of course, is all that is really required to (and, I should also mention, axiomatically will, whatever they come up with exactly) solve this huge, inexorable global problem. That's the tragedy.

So thanks Pastorius for another good Request and keep 'em coming guy's. It's a process.

Request II: Brock O'Bannon Revisited

2008-07-13T16:25:00.000-07:00

The next reqest is was how Dongey Boner requested me, to, write more about Obama.

This is a fortutiously timely subject for, as those of my reader's in the States may be started to notice, the U.S. system is now going through a Presidencial election year this year (208). The Democrats are running Barrack Obama (nee Brock O'Bannon) against something that the Reputzis will choose who will probably be some old white guy who's against the people. And than the people will decide, will they vote for the guy who's for the people (the Democrat) or the other one. Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other. Its strange but I guess that's the beauty of are system.

Anyways, Obama. What to say about this man. The first thing is how COMPELLING his life story is. To sum up his life story for folk's not aware: Obama is half African-American (by his father who was a African-American man from Africa) and half regular. So then he got a law degree and well, to long a story short of it he's going to be are next PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The first time I heard that I was hell of compelled.

One thing you just love about him is how progressive you can tell he is. Every time I even look at him I think progressive. He just ixudes progressive. I hear this is confirmed by the content of his ELOQUENT (and articulate) speeche's which have wowed me since WAY back. And which from what I've heard (like from Cyrus) are full on progressive. When Cyrus told me this I was like "duh, I had the sound down on C-SPAN and I could still tell he was being progressive.

But there remain's the problem of, will the (rascist/prejudgiced) Amreican people look passed the surface and to the SUBSTANCE. Or will the just base there entire judgment of the man (Brock) on his skin (half) color, how he looks ect. Sad that we're still here isn't it? Well that's kind of 80% of why its so imperative for us all to vote for him. On account of how we're all so rascist that we won't.

It's kind of like that experience we all probably had when we first got up to were we had a actuel African-American at are school i.e. in junior high (or whenever it was for you). This is a improtant moment because its when you realize how great it is that even they too can have parents who have normal houses with pools, etc. For me he was David M. and, although I'm admit, was kind of disappoint when I finally actually heard him talk later that school year, to discover he didn't sound much like Arnold/Willis (the gravelly voice with funny words, or however you want to discribe), but had a more normal voice. (Also not the poofy hair but more short hair). Anyway by that point I guess you could say we were kind of friends. Like one time in woodshop he borrowed/took some of the mahogany I was going to use and I basically didn't mind ("it's cool" I think I probably told him). Not sure he heard me but if he didn't, it was cool anyways, so basically, either way. Another thing that flashes back to me is how he was first seed Long Jump and I was always like 2nd or 3rd and couldn't even think about passing him. But I understood the situation, i.e. it wasn't that he was really better than me or practiced more, it was just on account of his natural/inborn ability which is kind of unfair. It's was pretty obvious that if you would use a sort of even scale (like, factor out the unfair factor) we were basically even. So I had no resentment really, in fact it was a healthy rivalary that drove us each of us. Basically that's how it was with me and him, I liked to consider me and him is friends, so, fast foward and you can see my attraction to O'Bannon as well. It's going to give me a amazingly good felling to pull his lever.

So the question RELLY boil's down to is this: are you going to be rascist enough to take that away from me and MILLIONS like me? As I see it, the stakes in this upcoming election are exactly that high.

Yggie: All Foam And No Latte?

2008-07-04T16:00:00.000-07:00

Guinspen linked to this article (which, in turn, refers and links to this article that discusses and links to this article by Yggie) , ridiculously claiming that "...the actual leadership/power-base consists of nothing but effete urban queerbaits like Yglesias who would sell out the "working man" for some extra foam in his latte".

It's best to dismiss such idiotic critiques of our heroes, but since this article has already attracted some attention, let's give it the fisking it requires:

1a. The very idea of 'selling out' anyone for the sake of extra foam in latte(!) is grotesque! Latte is already very light and milky. Extra foam isn't simply unwarranted. Extra foam.. I repeat: EXTRA foam is simply undesirable. Therefore, the idea that Yglesias would sell out anyone for extra foam in his latte is plainly ludicrous and doesn't withstand scrutiny. An an aside, surely his sentence ought to read 'on his latte' rather than 'in his latte'. This suggests the Ace of Spades is either completely unfamiliar with latte or else it demonstrates how sloppy his thinking is.

1b. It's possible the writer is being metaphorical (tho' I doubt that) and he's essentially saying that our Yggie is all foam and no real Java. Permit me to laugh: HA HA!

Listen up: Yggie is not foamy or milky! If anything, Yggie would ask for more foam on his espresso. (by the way, you really should all try this: espresso with some foam on top. aka Macchiato. Enhance this even further by sprinkling some (3 is the recommended #) coffee beans on top. Now that's worth selling someone out for!) Either way, we're talking Espresso here. Strong stuff. That's the sort of drink a man like our Yggie would drink. He's sort of The Marlboro Man (only of coffee, not tobbaco). He's not weak, watery, milky or (as the demented writer puts it) "effeminate.. queer-bait'. That last part 'queer-bait' can probably be put down to the fact that the author evidently feels some sexual lust towards Yglesias. Since he refuses to admit his own latent homosexuality, he tries to pin the blame on a manly man like Yggie (It's obvious when you think about it).
Besides, persistent foam is of great importance as it is responsible for the visual acceptability of the drink and for trapping the volatilized aromas. So if Yggie were to sell out the working man for something, it would be for the foam to be more persistent!!! (and on an espresso, not on a fucking latte).

2. More regarding 'effeminate, queerbait'.. We know for a fact that Yggie is really into girls. At least one (and probably many more) blog posts attest (at least indirectly) to Yggie's attempt to pick up girls. Hence Point #2 is proven (as was point 1 in both its interpretations).

3. "I sure do wish I was as smart as some of these lefties and thus able to secure a steady gig blogging for a big magazine". In a rare moment of truth, the writer acknowledges his (at least relative) stupidity and his intense desire to be like Yggie.

4. "Yglesias took the day off from splitting atoms... with his mind to weigh in on economics". I'm not sure if the writer is using sarcasm here (and is that meant to be funny?) or if he truly imagined that anyone can split atoms with their minds (which is impossible). The writer would do well to take the day off from making grotesque assertions on his unimportant blog to brush up on his physics or to work on his ability to conjure up smiles.

5. "And the hard-hats and the soft-heads have a disagreement here that simply cannot be compromised or finessed away: the working man doesn't like high gas prices, but the soft-handed dipshitterati loves high gas prices, and in fact wants them even higher. (As Obama himself admitted not too long ago.)

We'll see if they're able to square that circle."

There is indeed a circle and beside it is a square but so what? Gas prices should be higher (for a variety of reasons) and we love the working man even though, unfortunately, he doesn't love high gas prices (or us for that matter but unrequited love is neither a crime nor a logical impossibility). There's no circle to be squared.

6. The writer sarcastically says "if only we could tax gas to an even higher price, why, we'd have more money with which to send people rebates to ease the burden of paying for higher gas".

This makes perfect sense to me. Yggie sensibly points out that higher gas prices have their own reward (like global warming / climate change) and congestion.. but that the tax revenues would allow people to benefit in any number of other ways. Therefore, the writer's next sarcastic assertion of "We'd have the benefits, you see, of having both high gas prices and low gas prices at the same time!" is meaningless.

It should be difficult to write an article in which not a single sentence can stand up to scrutiny. Congrats to the 'Ace of Spades'!

Request I

2008-06-28T16:39:00.000-07:00

Aunti-Dhinger asks something about "Shawria Law" whether comign to America ect. Now that's a good question to get us started of.

Not sure when I explained this but I guess I must've, that "Shawria Law" (I think he means Shawria Larik) was a girl from my highschool. Who, the interested thing about her was nobody knew she was hot (she had blonde hair but that's about it) but now it turn's out she's like a mega pop star in Estonia or something. So I don't know when she's coming back to America but maybe when her tour is over?

I never knew she would become such a a big star (well in retroscept I had a inkling just never said anything). Me and her was pretty good friends as I recall. For example this one time in sophmore English she borrowed my pencil for a #2 test which was a big thing because I didn't have a other #2 (didn't do very well on teh test myself). I bet she remember's that to so you could ask her. How we are were big friends.

So basically aunti-dhinger that's what I know about that. Still not sure how you knew about how I went to school with a Estonian pop star but that's the funny part about the internet (small world when you thing about it). Although I will say I surprised to hear you say her name Shawria (I always thought it was Kristi but maybe, I had it wrong). Anyways thanks for hte good question.

UPDATE: Also aunti are you sure about the Larik part. Because I could of sworn she had a U in it somewhere (something like that).

In your defense though the problem was is how girls is always changing there names all around so you can't ever know what there name even is sometimes. I don't know how about you but thats how it was where I went. Like when Colette came back from junior high to highschool and all of the sudden she wanted to be "Nicole". I was like huh? Where did she get that? In her case I just figured it was because she was doing it with guy's now so it's was to symbolize that. But sometimes there's basically no reason. I guess I never really knew what her name was. The happy ending to the story though is how she got big in Estonia so don't fell bad.

UPDATE II (6/28): Ok I found it, just to give closure on this subject, turn's out I was right and aunti-dhinger was wrong. I guess he just remembered it wrong. It happens. Anwyays check it out:

I was skeptical but now I admit, that look's like a awsome album. Anyway I'm glad we cleared this issue up once and for all.

Request

2008-06-27T15:35:00.000-07:00

The big thing now in blogging is to do a reqeuests. That's where you throw it open to the readerships and what do THE want you to write about. It could be anything, like whether The Iraq War was wrong or some other issue like that. (Such as how wrong it was (The Iraq War) for example). Or something else like imperalism etc. That's the great thing about it because it's up to YOU. Your in control

So tell me, readerships. What is you want me to write about next. I'm thrown open to you now lets hear it (you guys serously this is a good opportunity on account of I don't usuelly do this, so don't let it is waste)

The Reason It Bother's Liberals Like Such As Myself If We Do A Wrong War

2008-06-22T05:34:00.000-07:00

I'm going to try to explain this for Carrot. Sorry if its alittle basic.

We (liberals, like me) don't want are country's military to do thing which is shooting guns ect. We don't want are country to use military force in any given situation. Independent of the situation we don't want are country to use military force in other words. The main thing we want is are military not using force^*. That's what it means to be liberal.

Are country has a military. Thats alot of guy's from like Appallacchia and the Inner City which don't has educations. I don't want those guys to do stuffs. I want to stop them from doing anything (give out bread/soup ect is ok, plus maybe there could be literasy programs for them). Thats my main driving force. As a liberal. Message: "My country should not use military force". This goes back along ways to liberalism I think.

Lets talk about other countries so-call "enemies". Lets say theres a countyr over there (e.g. like Iran) that hate's America and plots against us and funds revolutionary terrorists to stir up trouble against us and are allies and kill's people in a effort to amass power and empire.

Improtant point: We don't want us using force against them ever for any reason. That's the LAST thing we want as liberals. The idea of (some other people i.e. the military) using force against someone who is a big enemy of us is terrible (and scary- it totally scares us when military force is used because of how much that totally affects are lives (cf. The Iraq War)) and so we seek to prevent it from happening at all costs. Again this follows from liberalism.

One thing that bothers us is when dhingers say are enemies is are "enemies". (See how I put that in quotes?) Or the say are enemies like Iran is doing bad stuffs. I HATE that. That's the LAST thing I want to hear is that a country that is against us and is run by murderous autocrat zealots is doing bad stuffs. I (like other liberals) will argue to the last breath against ANY claim of ANY country-that-doesn't-like-us doing ANYTHING which is REMOTELY bad REGARDLESS of the "so" call "evidence" (<-quotes?) to the contrary. The reason for this is because if dhingers get away with saying these evil/yuckie countries is doing bad stuffs, that might convince the (gullible/hick) Amreican population to support military action. And as per above: the main thing that drives liberalisms (like us) is to prevent are country from using military force. Thats like 99.3% of liberalism right now frankly (also heathcare).

So this is why if ANYONE dares so say taht Iran is trying to get nukes we will simply say NO THEY AREN'T and call that person a stupid crazy liar. (You see: If regalar people thought they were trying to get nukes, military force might happen). Similarly, if someone says it's a bad thing that Iran's like totally trying to get nukes, we'll say no its not the have every right to get nukes. (Because if people think they don't, military force might happen). Then after once after Iran gets nukes (hopefully sometimes soon) are job will get even easier because then to prevent usage of military force by are own country all we have to do is point out that Iran has nukes (not talking about now but like 1-2 yrs from now when Iran gets nukes). This is liberalism as a nutshell: the main thing is to prevent any usage whatsoever of military force by are own country for any reason.

Why is this you say? Why go through so much trouble to prevent usage of military force all the time by the country we live in and love (which, if it uses military force, is being imperalistic. I touched on this in the last post

Basically, we don't want are country to be strong or have power right now. That would make us sad. This is because we love are country to much. After all, are country is still mired in materialistic capitalistic rascist thinking, there is SO much wrong with it as a society (its probably teh worst most evil society in history if you add it all up) so if are country were strong, unchecked, thriving, prosperous ect., that would only make it not have any reason to improve from are point of view.

The idea of are country not having constant ongoing threats against it that are perceived as insoluble is intolerable to us as liberals. And military force might, if used, actually eliminate some existing threat or another. This would suck because then what would force are country to change at all. Like that Middle East place over there. Right now its a thorn in are side and that reminds us that we need to get OFF are oil addiction and move people (the worker types) closer together in dense pack cities with public transit. But if military force were to be used serially against the Middle East and one by one eliminate threats or at least redirect them internally? Then what incentive would there be for bigger gasoline tax or moving people. What. You tell me. Waht. So threats/"enemies" are too important and crucial to are country's development to just use military force against and get rid of willy nilly.

The other (maybe bigger) reason is that sometimes military force is used by dhingers (R's) and than they get popular and get re-elected. This is the lesson we learned from the first President Bush: military force ALWAYS makes someone popular and get re-elected. But so then if military force were allowed then (R)'s could use it for automatic re-election and then they'd be in there all the time instead of (D)'s which is more for the people. If this happens we'll NEVER get heathcare, which is the other big thing for liberals. Serously, I'm so sick of not having heathcare its not even funny. (And if you think I'm talking ignorant here just remember my GP totally agree's with me about this)

I could go on but I thing I've explained it pretty well 90% of it. Basically there's tons of perfectly rational reasons that what it all adds up to is this: for liberals, the main guiding principle is to seek to prevent are own country from ever using military force. Because we love it to much to let it be unthreatened by these elements which will force it to change in a way that we would prefer. As liberals.

*Except against Serbia

Heathcare

2008-06-17T18:21:00.000-07:00

Ok I've been seeing alot in the news about how Iraq's is "reduce" violence or whatever. I just wanted to clear something up about that.

Dudes: Iraqi's are Arab/Muslims. God I can't believe what I have to remind of sometimes. Argh

Ok I'm getting ahead of myselves let me back this up. Basically if you look at the dhinger talk the past few's years, it seems like the broader problem is they have the misimpression that you can get Arab/Muslims to not do violence at some point. Um listen up dhingers: WRONG. You can't. Thats naive and stupid.

The idea that you can get to a state of affairs in which a nation-state populated primarily by Arab/Muslims is not plagued by repeated random violence for political ends is (frankly) just absurd. It's not reality based. That's why I don't even pay attention to news and events coming out of Iraq for along time, to be honest. Of what significance is the ebb and flow of details and and everyday changes in Iraq compared to the conviction shared by the liberal, reality-based community such as myself that all efforts to bring forth a somewhat non-violent nation-state are inherently doomed and utopian if/when said nation-state is populated largely by Arab-Muslims.

Also, to top it off, the idea that Arab/Muslims can somehow get to a point were they not do violence is blatant rascist BWT. Its like imposing ARE values on them. As if somehow EVERONE wants to live EXACTLY like us (no violents, Starbuck's, music on are pods ect). Talk about arrogant. To go around thinking a other COMPLETELY OTHER people want there not to be violence in there nation-state. Oh I see I guess the Necons just want to destroy all cultural differences. This gets into how dhingers don't even know the most basic things like the differences between Sunnis and Shiites. (Which RELLY ticks me off. Serously there should be like a #1 bottom line requirement taht before anyone can hold any governmental position of authority in the United States of America he's got to take a extensive course on the theological and historical differences between the Sunni and Shi'ite branches of the Islam faith, and be thoroughly tested on it. I mean, what's more improtant to the job description a Amreican President? Serously?

But that's a side point. The main thing is that we need to keep getting the word out how futile is the neocon dhinger thinking in all here, because the more I thing about the more obvious it is that it relies on a significant % of Arab/Muslim people somehow not being violent. Which is self-evidently impossible. But do enough people know this? Let's make sure. Because I can't think of a more improtant message to further the cause of progressivism (I really can't).

Moreover, when there are times when a population of Arab/Muslims is somehow not beset by quite as much violent as at some previous time, we've got to make sure we downplay this and instinctively treat it as by its very nature only temporary due to the fact that the population in question is Arab/Muslims. The last thing we want here is to send the message to Arab/Muslims (let alone us) that them ceasing there violence ways on a somewhat permanent and indefinite basis lies in the realm of possiblity, let alone a good way to go. We've destroyed enough cultures not Arab/Muslims TOO.

Also, the larger issue here is that if Arab/Muslims weren't violent who would be resisting us. I was thinking about this the other day at my chiroparctor's. Who would be resisting dhingers if not Arab/Muslims. Especially (R) dhingers who get in there and then do all this stuffs and won't give us heathcare. My god people we still don't have any heathcare. Its kind of gruesome to think about but just keep in mind everfy time there's a "terrorist" attack that kills dozens of (Iraqi's/whoevers), just remember- there fighting for US to. For are heathcare. If they fail, and a (R) wins again we'll NEVER get heathcare.

So turn up your nose at there methods if you will but, if they weren't doing it who would. Every time a Arab/Muslim kills are soldiers at least that's resisting us. Every time the kill each other, that's resisting us too. If they kill a pigeon: resisting us. If they get into a slapping fight in a bar: resistance. If two Arab/Muslims are both trying to get onto the subway at the same time and bump shoulders and each mutter "excuse me" to the other, while at the same time thinking the other was too hasty and resenting the other privately - that's resisting us to. All of this (and virtually anything else Arab/Muslims do or don't do) means pretty much the same thing: we should GET OUT. (Of - wherever)

And have heathcare instead.

it's 'terror', but not as we know it

2008-06-13T15:03:00.000-07:00

in an interesting article Brat stephens babbles about how 'terrorists' should not be understood but simply killed. Doesn't the fool realize that the real terrorism is state terrorism and that his article is likely to be read by so-called islamist terrorists from Islamabad to Toronto and strengthen their belief that western terrorism can be defeated and that the appropriate method is to kill, kill and kill some more?

As an aside: does Yggie play guitar?

Relevant Movie Reviews: Enchanted

2008-06-08T07:39:00.000-07:00

Disney does it agian with Enchanted, a delightful fairy tale and also, turns out a incisive allegory for how much The Iraq War was wrong.

Enchanted start's out like most good Disney movie's where its a cartoon and there's a beautiful princess with beautiful dresses and right away I was intranced by the magic. Theres one scarey scene where she's chased by a big scarey green troll that I had to close my eyes but mostly it was a great start to what I THOUGHT was going to be yet another Disney cartoon classic.

BUT. All of the sudden the wicked stebmother did something and the princess Jizelle was fall down the well. I was SO FREAKED because what's going to happen to her. Little did I know that she would come out the other side to the REAL WORLD. Our world. Of New YOrk City! This was amazing becuase first she was a cartoon and then suddenly she's no longer a cartoon. I was like what? I'm still not sure how the did this effect of making a cartoon character look SO real (almost like a real person, except for around the eye's you could tell) but kudo's to the CGI department for a amazing, and largely convincing effect.

Anyways, when she gets there she is helped by the charming Patrick Dempsey and I forget what else happens but there's at least 3 awesome song's. Then basically the evil queen comes after her and WATCH OUT. I won't spoil it but lets just say it involve's a big giant dragon

This is the part where I started realizing, "hey, they're commenting on The Iraq War". Because The Iraq War was the same kinda thing, us trying to kick someone out (Saddam, instead of the princess like the movie version) just because we was afraid he would take are power ect. And then we came after him with "shock and awe which is a metaphorcal big Disney dragon if I every saw one. Plus castles etc. The connection got pretty obvious by the end so if you want to be up on the latest in cutting edge anti Iraq War arguments you totally gotta to check out Disney's Enchanted. Also why no Oscar for Amy Adam's. That was robbed serously.

PNAC

2008-06-02T19:21:00.001-07:00

What if you need a handy tip on account of you're stuck in a argument with a dhinger about how The Iraq War was wrong and you used alot of my argument's but still stuck.

Well one word for you: PNAC.

PNAC. That's all you gotta say. Just say PNAC. After that he'll be like yikes. And everone watching will be like whoa. So take it from me. You don't have to even say anything after that. Just PNAC.

True story.

Why America act like terrorist PR manager?

2008-05-25T04:50:00.000-07:00

at answers.yahoo.com here
russian ambition asks:

They always calling terrorists who destabilize unfriendly countries as "rebels" or "separatists".

They never call them terrorists.

But, with the legitimate armed resistance of Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Palestine they are calling them terrorists.

I am Orthodox Christian, by the way.

Not Muslim

I'm scratching my head trying to come up with an answer. I think it's either Neocons or Oil.

UPDATE: combussington says "Umm, I don't know. Maybe they think that Hezbollah, members of the Islamic Courts Union, suicide bombers, and molotov cocktail-throwing protesters act kind of like terrorists."

The point is, however, they only (as he noted) "act kind of like terrorists" and not just act like terrorists (nuance). Besides, it still doesn't explain why America act like terrorist PR manager.

Iceland Scott Free

2008-05-24T04:52:00.001-07:00

You know what I wouldn't mind us doing a wrong war on though, is Iceland. Did you ever meet a actual Iceland person. FREAKY. It's like, are they elfs or waht. (The girls) As for, when I was in Oregon I hung out with a Iceland guy and, just don't even ask.

Yet Iceland gets a pass, afaik noone every does a wrong war on them. Ever notice that? Why is that? Oh right I got it, its because there white.

Rascists.

side-effects of blogging and no to squishing of dissent

2008-05-17T16:48:00.000-07:00

Update: For those asking, the answer is no, the (presumed) NSA agents didn't explicitly offer money.. they're much craftier than to do that, but reading between the lines, it's pretty clear they're trying to bribe me into writing dhinger things.
I suspect most other progressive bloggers have had similar offers, whereas people like charles something from LGF are more or less known to be nothing more than puppets on strings. I almost feel sorry for him, having to spout off these anti-islam posts and he seems to work so very hard at it!! Hard to imagine anyone would work that hard for mere money so either they're blackmailing him or else charles whatever isn't a person per-se but rather a group of people at one of the government agencies.

I'm a little bit drunk (from celebrating 4 years of TIWWWWB) so I hope this will be coherent. I too am a little bit awestruck. Being a (guest) blogger can overwhelming. The sudden fame can go to anyone's head! Why, just the other day, one of my fans sent me an email telling me she embroidered one of my blog posts onto her pillow. At moments like that, I try to keep my sobriety by tempering my exultation with realizing the heavy responsibility that lays on my (and every other blogger's) shoulders. Knowing that so many people rely on my analysis carries heavy burdens (I guess that goes double for people like Yggie).
And there are days when I'm called upon to exploit my celebrity status to open up yet another supermarket. It's glamorous, of-course, but sometimes I feel I'm selling myself cheap. Also, I can't count anymore the number of times that government agents (NSA, I think, but they're careful to hide their exact identity) have pressured me with promises of greater fortune if only I would put in a good word for 'the good old u.s of a' asking me to write at least about the surge. Their offers stink. For that sort of money, I don't even take my pyjamas off (not that I'd do it anyway (writing propganda for them, not taking off my pj's)). Like I said, they could up their offers and I'd still refuse(!) but it's a little disheartening that they offer so little.

Well, time to have another celebratory drink, and to your cheapskate gov' agents, you 'll NEVER squish our dissent. As to you (readers), even if you'll chance to hear me say the occasional good word about the war on iraq (fat chance) I promise you it'll be my honest opinion and not me selling out!

Did you know?

2008-05-17T04:59:00.001-07:00

It's was four (4) years ago on this today that fateful day when I decided to start The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog. In that intervening time, a whole generation of kids have entered & left there high school, and other stuffs has happened, but when I thing about what I've accomplished most of all (by blogging about how The Iraq War Was Wrong) I'm awestrucken. Truly awestrucken. We all are.

A Loose End

2008-05-11T20:38:00.000-07:00

BWT your probably still wondering what show I was talking about here I think I tracked it down that it's was this:

Which now hopefully from this you can see the point I was trying to make there.

IWWProve Everywhere II: Seals Don't Know

2008-05-11T14:42:00.000-07:00

Mission II: Seals Don't Know

Where: San Francisco (Fishermen's Worf)

When: Teusday 5/13/08, approx 2:15-2:45 pm

Instructions: Somewhere around 2:15 or thereabouts, you: the interpid IWWWprov Players, will gather gradually and unassumingly at Fishermans Worf which is a tourist sight in San Francisco. When the fancy takes them (e.g. perhaps they get a giant sundae at Giradelli Square first), they will wander down the worf and end up back at that place where the seal's are. (Back and to the side somewhat- forget exactly).

Once there, you will just stand there looking at the seals for awhile, occasionally pointing, and perhaps taking a few photographs. (The elderly can sit on the bleacher's that are set up there). This behavior will continue for like 3-15 minutes and then, without warning, you will each independently appear to decide it's time to go, and be on you're merry way, leaving onlookers in shock at the whole spectacle, but not explaining a thing.

If someone approaches you and asks whats going on, here is your line:

"Do the seals know it was wrong?"

That's all your gonna say. Nothing more. The look on there face as it dawns on them should be priceless.

Let's see if we can pull this of as good as the Train Of Wrong. This is why the Internet is such a great medium. We have a real chance here to put the Iraq war's wrongness out there. So, hopefully everone who can will show up Tuesday and let's freak some people out. (I'm unable to make it Tuesday but I'll TOTALLY be in contact with Sana T. Injection about it, who has kindly agreed to do the videoing).

P.s. About Jim's movie from the last one, he amiled it to me (HELARIOUS) but I don't know how to put is on Youtube. Someone help/ Anyways maybe I'll just describe it - Jim goes through several train cars packed with people and videos them as they're on the Train Of Wrong, and it's AMAZING how many IWWWprovers you can spot. Some of them are all trying not to look at the camera, making a wierd face when the see it ect., so its pretty obvious who was in on it. Great job guys.

Announcement: TIWWWBprov Everywhere

2008-05-07T18:42:00.000-07:00

If you haven't Improv Everywhere check it out. Anwyays that got to me thinking, could we incorporate that sort of gonzo approach into are efforts (to say The Iraq War was wrong repeatedly and incessantly until everyone everwhere concedes The Iraq War was wrong).

Yes we can. I call it TIWWWBprov Everywhere.

So I took of the afternoon today and got a shake and tried to figure out what we can do. Here's my idea for are first mission:

Mission 1: Train Full Of The Iraq War Was Wrong

The idea is so simple it's ingenious. It's to takes place in New York City like all the best Improv Everywhere stunts on account of, they seem to have the best Improvers there.

On the specified day, Friday May 9th, at 7:10 a.m. in the morning, our interpid TIWWWBprov Everywherers will board (or arrange to have boarded beforehand at an earlier stop), say, the Uptown 6 (local) train at the 86th Street station. Once aboard, each Player will either stare straight ahead and sit/stand silently, or look down at an open book they are holding in their hands as if reading, occasionally turning the page. (Books optional).

At Grand Central/42nd Street (or, say, 23rd, depending on where they need to go ect) a few minutes later, the TIWWWBprov Everywhere Players will then get off the very same train, exit the station, and go their separate ways, not having said a word the whole time, with no one's the wiser. IMPORTANT: DURING THE MISSION, DON'T LET ON TO ANYONE WHAT'S GOING ON. If anyone asks, you're just a commuter going to his job as a COO at some bank or wahtever.

But once the mission's over, if approached (by reporter's or whoever) we say we did it because The Iraq War was wrong. Just like that: "Because The Iraq War was wrong".

Folk's I can already tell this is going to be a classic. I've talked to Jim about it already and he's promised to get up there from Charlottesville to video the whole thign. (Sorry I can't be there for this one/prior engagement). Anyways LET'S DO IT people.

Reason I'm so exited you ask is because this is frankly one of the best idea's I've had in a long time.

UPDATE (5/9) Just got of the chat with Jim and he says it was AWSOME! THe way it went down and the way he describe's it. Just wow. I'm amazed too because I thought I screwed it up by typoing that you guy's should use Uptown instead of Downtown. But Jim says there was literadely HUNDRED'S of people on the Train Of Wrong so I guess you figured it out. See, that's why I have some of THE BEST blog readers going. Anyways he got it all on tape and it sounds helarious, I'll try to figure out how to post the video when i get it.

Neocons: A Good Argument We Made Alot

2008-05-07T18:21:00.000-07:00

One thing we noticed about The Iraq War even way back in 2003 was that the Neocons only RELLY wanted to do it for there country over there (Ishrael). Because they knew doing The Iraq War would make it all safe and whatnot.

Which it HAS. Have you noticed that? Because I have: Every since The Iraq War, Israel has been totally and completely safe as far as I can tell. (Which kind of pisses me of actuelly because, what give's a overt/full-on Neocon country the right to be safe from "terrorism". If YOU had to live in the same region as a bunch of Neocons wouldn't YOU want to do "so" called "terrorism" on them). Well, justice be damned I guess, because Israel is unfairly (and totally) safe from any of that now. You know, because The Iraq War happened.

That's what doing The Iraq War did and that's why The Neocons wanted to do it, which is precisely why it (and Strauss, don't forget Strauss) was such a good argument for us liberals such as myself to have been making and writing articles about at the time. (Indeed, I'm particularly grateful for all the man-hours and megabytes that liberals including myself devoted to researching and educating people about Strauss, because of how relevant Strauss was (and is). To, like, everything).

Anyways, just wanted to point that out.

A Tougie

2008-05-03T15:50:00.000-07:00

This one's a tougie: Which war do you think was the Iraqest war ever? (Asides from The Iraq War, of course).

Don't get me wrong. Goes without saying (taking as read) The Iraq War is obviously the most Iraq war ever. Assumably this is the very reason why we call it The Iraq War (one and the same). It narrowly beats out The Gulf War which was (too) a Iraq War but it was primarily Gulf, evidently.

But which got me to thinking yesterday at work (I do alot of this type's of thinking when I'm writing my VBA macro's): How Iraq are were the other wars? That we did on other people (besides Iraqi's). Surely some wars we have did were Iraqer than others. Maybe some were not very Iraq at all. So right there there's a gradation there. Mayhaps others were nearly as Iraq as The Iraq War itself (ok not FULLY Iraq but let's say 70% as Iraq). Well to my way of thinking this naturally rises the question of which one was the Iraqest of all. (Besides Iraq)?

So answer's in comments. Was is the Phillipines conflict of the early 1900s? Because that one was pretty Iraq from what I heard. But maybe there's been others we didn't cover with Mrs. Heilmann in USHAP (or the part where I had the chicken pocks and when I came back and she was showing The Molly McGwires and I was just totally lost).

For example did we do a war on Egpyt (a The Egypt War) because I bet if we did that would of been quite Iraq indeed (not as Iraq as it was Egypt of course but still reasonably Iraq). So anyways let me know either way. This is just my curiositys here, not The Iraq War related (directly) but a way to open up the conversation. Thing's getting to tense around here if you ask me. Also another angle, any good music you heard lately. YOu know whats a good soundtrack- Ocean's 12. Even better than 11 actually which was suprising. I like the one where she's (Catherine-Zeta Jones?) singing in a foreign language- good one for while your just chill. Ok anyways that was a good post I think, we covered alot.

I Had Sex With Michelle Obama

2008-05-03T06:10:00.000-07:00

Me I don't have no job but this post could be NSFW if you do have a job. Becuase adult subject matter. Not explicset pitures, sorry.

Why am I even telling youse. It was back in the early 90s when I visited Chicago. As you know I endorse Barak and Michelle for president, I Wrote favorable blog posts. I care very much about the REPUTATION of The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog and also about the Obama's. I owe it to our readerships to avoid even the APPEARANCE of a confict of interest, impropriety so on so forth. So that's why I'm telling you so I can come clean. For the record. My sexaul relationship with Michelle Obama has NOTHING to do wif my endorsement of her candacy as "first" lady.

So what's she like you may aks. Well. She don't so-call shave "down there" as much as most Afican American wemen. From anus to about level with her urethral opening, and THAT'S IT. And where she shaves she got so much 5 oclock. Stubble more like. Some ingrown hairs. One it got infected I guess, because a huge pimple. But it was like mostly healed.

So how did it happen, how was it ect. Well, first kissing then I done heavy pettings to her i.e., finger. Then I done cunningus on her which she LIKE it. all wet. She was gwine do me back fellat but I don't like that. Then vaganal in three positions. and when I try anal she gets all mad

I'm not 100% sure it was Michelle Obama, I did not ask her name but if I remember it looked like her anyways. And like I said it was in Chicago. I think it was in Chicago.

UPDATE

From the comments aka peanut gallery:

two dogs is correct.

This post is way below the standards of this blog. Doesn't belong on the blog of the guy who published the high school newsletters of Brian Leiter.

My response:

A voice for others - reasons to vote for obama

2008-04-30T17:17:00.000-07:00

so many smart people have exactly the right thing (bon mot in fr.) to say but don't have access to this venue (depriving them and us at the same time) so today I'd like to give a voice to those who have none. Letting them speak through me:

Dear Fellow Americans,

Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America
is and will face very critical "Challenges" in coming
years and decades.

The Problems will be tough and solutions would not
easy.

The key will the cool, calm, and collectedness of our
next President[ What I call Presidential Temperament'
The one remaining candidate who has consistently that
Presidential Temperament is Senator Obama.

His message of change makes sense. We have to stop
doing business in Washington old ways. The new ways of
lifting each other up and stopping tearing each other
down will not held our Great grand Nation. The
Terrorists around the world[real] and inadvertently
assisted by some shortsighted media [Who are party to
this perpetuation of psychological terrorism of
mis-information, dis-information, and duplicity], that
is what we do not need.

In order to send the message around the world that
America is get Senator Obama our next president. At
least on thing he has shown consistently is the
presidential Temperament. The Temperament of our next
president is very critical address internal and
internal challenges. Let us defeat real external
terrorists snd internal psychological terrorists once
for all.

God Bless out Great grand Nation, its diverse people,
and Senator Obama. He is the ans her to our future
stability, security, safety, and regain our status in
the world.

PS: Angry Wright wrong and by electing Senator Obama President of this Greatgrand Nation. Paster Wright will be set on right course.

Yours truly,

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall
Disables American Veteran.
Las Vegas Nevada.

Desaster

2008-04-27T04:55:00.000-07:00

Yggie mad ethe point here that The Iraq War "has...been a disaster for the United States of America". You know, I don't think this is dwelled on hysterically enough (by us), how utterly disasterous The Iraq War has truly been for are country. Were talkign about a disater a FULL ON DISASTER for the country and yet for some reason we on the left often don't often seem to wildly overstate the size breadth and depth of this disaster as much as we really should.

Maybe the problem is helping the lay person see how much of a DISASTER The Iraq War has been for are country. I guess the only thing to do is go back to basics, remind them what the country was like in 2002, and that way they can compare to now (2008), and on making this comparison the extent of the DISASTER between then (before The Iraq War started) and now will be completely obvious.

So, here's some stuffs about 2002 that was the country was like:

Britney still at the top of the cahrts. I still had my Britney websight infact
It was the International Year Of Ecotourism And Mountains
On Friends Rachel told Ross about he's hte father
The Euro started
Halle Berry FINALLY got a Oscar for being a black woman
Awsome World Series (Scott Spizio ect)
Jimmy Carter gets the Nobel Peace PRize
American Idol starts up (!!!)

Looking back it's was almost a golden time. Compared to now (2008) which is like:

Britney in trouble which is to sad for me to even thing about :-( Instead I"m doing TIWWWB which I have had to put 4 years of my life into with no end insight.
International Year Of The Potato (? talk about carbs)
Everone forclosing (like my condo which was SUPPOSE to be a investment, but I handed in my key's and from my Home equity only ended up like $40k on the whole thing)
Friends not even on anymore (we don't even have that to turn to)
EURUSD going through the roof (which is ok because I had the foresight to buy EUR awhiles ago but still
All the Oscar's going to a bunch of white people (Juno, ect) basically like the dark '50s times
McAin is like "I'm so honorable" while meanwhile Obama/Hillary have to go at each other which, I'm sorry
The Wire ("the greatest television show ever in the whole history of television shows or anything else" -Yggie) is gone
And what's good on TV right now anyways. There's still Lost (totally confusing) but and um what else.

This stark contrast between 2002 and 2008 for the country is makes it perfectly clear how much of a desaster The Iraq War was for the country. The country, which was going ok in 2002, is basically just a desaster area now. Everything. EVERYTHING's messed up. It's RELLY hard to overstate this. I mean every time I think maybe I'm exaggerating I just think of the difference (like e.g. the Friends thing which is SO DEPRESSING ME at the moment) and realize I'm not.

Thats why as liberals we got to harp on this. Remind people how much of a disaster it was. Because sometime's I think they wouldn't even notice any differences (which are STARK) if we weren't there to remind them.

People Make Assumptions

2008-04-27T01:36:00.000-07:00

Me I am a homeless white American with all of the baggage it entrails. When people they see me wif my carboard sign they automatically --> ASSUME <-- I abuse drugs/alcohol which I do but they don't know that they just --> ASSUME <-- I do which did you ever heard of innocent until poven guilty plus it makes an ass of you & me. I don't want your cheapass dollar, dhinger. that piss me off but good goDAMshit. Go to hell you piece ofshit -- BASTARD. Rich white guy trys to buy me off with a dollar I fro it back in his rethugnican McCain-voting Iraq-War-Supporting face your rich give me 5, 10, 20 or FOAD. GoDAMit that piss me off. You can afford it cracker scumbag. At least I'm "so"-called White/europan decsent. Do you know about white privaledge I done a LOT of reading. Maybe I should do a post on that I know a lot about it. Kind of a expert actually.

Watch MSM faux news and them try to spin this so I sound angry?